Fighter, Rogue, Blaster, Healer . . . Balanced?

[the Jester]

and is there anyone on the planet who still rolls stats?

YES.

As for the "only blasting/healing" OP, sounds like a way to discourage anyone from every playing a cleric or wizard to me. Only blasting? Only healing? Only boring.

 

[Remathilis]

I had heard that the 3.5 game is more balanced if you have the "fab 4" of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, but the Wizard is restricted to blasting spells (and say read magic) and the cleric is restricted to healing spells (including also things like remove paralysis, neutralize poison, raise dead, restoration, etc.).

Has anyone tried this? Would that make the game more balanced?

The problem here is that there are certain spells that overshow the other classes, and that (at properly high level) casters have enough slots to memorize them and still do their original job.

To whit: Invisibility, Knock, and Spider Climb are better than Hide, Open Lock, or Climb checks. If the spells granted the wizard free use of the skill with a bonus (on par with maxing out the skill, for example) they'd be equal. As they are, they're superior enough that, unless your game requires constant multiple uses of those skills, the spells are more than enough to suffice its use and limit's the rogue's ability to really shine.

Similiarly, a cleric's buffs are supposed to make everyone better (boosting AC, restoring hp, adding to attacks) but are best spent making the cleric the focus and uber-focusing him to be better at fighting than a similarly buffed fighter. (Divine Power, Divine Favor, Magic Vestment, Gtr Mgc Weapon). Ergo, the cleric can fight on par with a fighter AND still heal and flamestrike foes. (Wizards can pull a version of this too using tenser's transformation and polymorphs, but cleric's get the bene of great weapons, armor, and hp even when not tweaked out).

This doesn't EVEN begin to cover the problems with summoned monsters, wands and other cheap X use magic items (to avoid the need to waste spell slots on these spells) and broken metamagic and divine feats which further augment to the caster arsenal.

Its really easy to fix a lot of this. Pathfinder went that way in a lot of ways (nerfing spells primarily) but fixing wizards so that they're magic isn't a "I win" button, fixing cleric buffs to be better served as aid to others (a +1 to all allies is better than a +5 to one ally) and the removal of cheap magic item creation and broken metamagic/divine feats goes a LONG way to fixing the problem.

So you don't need to limit clerics and wizards to just nukes/heals, but you need to make utility magic and buffs stop stealing the show.

 

[gamerprinter]

The casters that seem most 'balanced' in our games is as buffer/debuffer, a little blasty, and some utility. Blaster only and healing only does nothing for balance.

 

[nijineko]

I had heard that the 3.5 game is more balanced if you have the "fab 4" of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, but the Wizard is restricted to blasting spells (and say read magic) and the cleric is restricted to healing spells (including also things like remove paralysis, neutralize poison, raise dead, restoration, etc.).

Has anyone tried this? Would that make the game more balanced?

no and no. mechanical game balance is an illusion and a bad idea anyway.

 

[Dozen]

Eh, what? What "tier system"? I'm afraid you've completely lost me.

Or is this some sort of CharOp thing?

I'm really guessing this is also deliberate, but I can't resist being a smartypants, so...

The Tier System is a widely used way to categorize Classes and Characters based on power and versatility. Generally, you shouldn't allow anyone to play a Character more than two Tiers above the weakest party member if the campaign is heavy on combat. It's not something I care for all that much unless I'm forced to, but it has it's uses.

You'll agree, I hope, that at least one way something can be broken is by being seriously unbalanced?

Not really. They could be breaking the campaign together! Soulmates in my loss of faith in humanity!

 

[delericho]

The Tier System is a widely used way to categorize Classes and Characters based on power and versatility. Generally, you shouldn't allow anyone to play a Character more than two Tiers above the weakest party member if the campaign is heavy on combat. It's not something I care for all that much unless I'm forced to, but it has it's uses.

Thanks. I hadn't seen that before.

As with many of these discussions, he's using a definition of 'power' that bears little to no resemblance to what I've seen in play.

 

[Dozen]

Thanks. I hadn't seen that before.

As with many of these discussions, he's using a definition of 'power' that bears little to no resemblance to what I've seen in play.

I can't concur. Don't misunderstand, I don't care for it because I let my players decide what they do. I don't consider it a must have, is all. The system itself works perfectly and it's definition of Power makes a lot more sense if you scroll down and read the examples in the second post under this question:

Q: So what exactly is this system measuring? Raw Power? Then why is the Barbarian lower than the Duskblade, when the Barbarian clearly does more damage?

Check it out, you may not agree, but will have a good laugh at the Commoner's and the Wizards entry.

Thanks for the XP, btw.

 

[delericho]

I can't concur. Don't misunderstand, I don't care for it because I let my players decide what they do. I don't consider it a must have, is all. The system itself works perfectly and it's definition of Power make a lot more sense if you scroll down and read the examples in the second post under this question

The problem with analyses like this is that they invariably assume the spellcaster always has the perfect spell or item available, and is willing to use it. It's like the example up-thread about spider climb outdoing the Climb skill - yes it does, if the Wizard has spent a slot on it, if he only needs it once in the day, and if he decides that this is the time to use it. (Or, possibly, if he's bought a scroll or wand. The problem there is that that eats into his limited budget for buying gear - are you sure you wouldn't rather put the money to a better headband of intellect instead?)

It's also a very common assumption that the casters get to 'nova' in every encounter. But that's a gamestyle assumption - in a game where casters can't be sure they won't have to fight again, they don't get to just blow through all their spells safely. And that makes a big difference to relative power levels.

(Finally, of course, the analysis assumes play over quite a number of levels. I believe the poster there assumed 13 levels. In eight years of playing 3.X, my groups have reached double figures a handful of times, and 13+ exactly once. Unless the analysis weights very heavily for the low levels where the overwhelming majority of play takes place, it is of limited use.)

Bottom line: it's an interesting read, and there's certainly significant truth in the assertion that the full casters are more powerful/flexible than other classes. But it's a flawed analysis, and of limited use.

 

[Dozen]

The problem with analyses like this is that they invariably assume the spellcaster always has the perfect spell or item available, and is willing to use it. It's like the example up-thread about spider climb outdoing the Climb skill - yes it does, if the Wizard has spent a slot on it, if he only needs it once in the day, and if he decides that this is the time to use it. (Or, possibly, if he's bought a scroll or wand. The problem there is that that eats into his limited budget for buying gear - are you sure you wouldn't rather put the money to a better headband of intellect instead?)

It's also a very common assumption that the casters get to 'nova' in every encounter. But that's a gamestyle assumption - in a game where casters can't be sure they won't have to fight again, they don't get to just blow through all their spells safely. And that makes a big difference to relative power levels.

The latter would be a good point, but the thread assumes neither. The Wizard's entry presents just a few of the countless examples to beat a dragon. If a Wizard is optimized in a way it cannot solo a dragon of a similar CR, he's doing something horribly wrong from an optimizer standpoint. And on that, you haven't played with optimizers a lot, have you? If I said I couldn't get a magic item due to material or XP cost, my old group would laugh their ass off.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I had heard that the 3.5 game is more balanced if you have the "fab 4" of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, but the Wizard is restricted to blasting spells (and say read magic) and the cleric is restricted to healing spells (including also things like remove paralysis, neutralize poison, raise dead, restoration, etc.).

Has anyone tried this? Would that make the game more balanced?

I think you'd find the game is much easier to balance just by removing scribe scroll and craft wand feats.